Darkside Rainbow

You ever stumble on one of those issues where you’re of two minds about the overall conflict - where on one hand you understand the point and why something needs to be done, and yet at the same time you wonder what the hell the big deal is?

That’s pretty much how I feel about the eHarmony discrimination lawsuit.

eHarmony sued for excluding gays - Yahoo News

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.

All right, I see the point here. It’s a good one. eHarmony.com is denying service to gays and lesbians based on sexuality, which can only be considered discrimination rather than an oversight based on ignorance when multiple prospective users have spoken to them about the issue and they haven’t changed their policy. It’s discriminatory, it’s unfair, it’s homophobic, it’s…not surprising from a dating service tied with a conservative evangelical religious group. But it’s still wrong, regardless of the “our business, our terms” clause inherent in most TOS agreements. Since it’s a publicly offered service, gays and lesbians should have the right to use it appropriately, and should also have the right to speak out and take action when that right is denied.

But on the other hand…there’s a nagging, irritable part of me that’s muttering about frivolous lawsuits. Why not just tell eHarmony to take a hike and use Yahoo! Personals, Matchmaker.com, Gayfriendfinder.com, OutinAmerica.com, or any of a dozen other well-established dating services that either cater to all sexualities or are specifically gay-oriented?

Seriously. Is eHarmony so much different from the hundred other online dating services that you can’t just take your business elsewhere? If a business doesn’t have what you want, you go to their competitors, who are - trust me - quite happy to take your money when the other company won’t. Suing eHarmony is a great statement for gay and lesbian rights, sure, but it’s almost like suing Target because they don’t carry your brand of dishwashing detergent (manufactured by a gay-friendly, eco-friendly, labor-friendly, pro-choice company, of course) and thus you had to buy it at Wal-Mart.

In this situation, we aren’t dealing with a lack of choice. If eHarmony was the only option available for online dating/matchmaker services, then going to the extreme of a discrimination lawsuit would be understandable. But in this case it’s a bit excessive, as frankly if I were in this situation I wouldn’t want to give my business to a company that I had to force to take it in the first place…not when I have other businesses lining up to provide me with willing service.

Forget the lawsuit. Go get your damned soap - and your damned date - somewhere else. If eHarmony doesn’t want to cater to the gay dating market it’s their loss, not yours, when they lose out on paying customers and revenue from advertisers targeting to the gay market. You are a consumer with choices and you lose nothing by turning to another service. So why waste the money to fight a meaningless battle?

The creed of good business is that the customer is always right - but what’s right isn’t always what’s smart.

And if you ask me this lawsuit may be the right thing to do, but honestly?

It sure as hell ain’t the brightest.

eharmony, dating sites, lawsuits, matchmaker.com, outinamerica.com, personals sites, discrimination

Allow me a moment, my darling flytraps, my wee pimentos in the olive of my martini, to be a thoroughly wicked person. Allow me, even, a brief lapse into schadenfreude - unfair, I know. Despite my temper, I do usually try to be fair towards even my opponents and not wish ill on those who wish ill on me, or glory in another’s misfortune.

But right now, I’m snickering a little too hard at the karmic justice to adhere to those principles very closely.

Why?

Because while cruising the news this morning, I found the following headline: “Phelps Follower Arrested”.

Oh, and not just any follower, my dearest little chickadees. Oh, no. The good reverend’s own daughter. Arrested. For contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Phelps Follower Arrested - 365gay.com

 
(Omaha, Nebraska) The daughter of homophobic preacher Fred Phelps was arrested Wednesday for suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested in Bellevue, Nebraska, after her 10-year-old son stomped on an American flag during a protest at the funeral of a National Guardsman killed in Iraq.

Please reread that last sentence.

“her 10-year-old son stomped on an American flag during a protest at the funeral of a National Gaurdsman killed in Iraq.”

I’m going to run out of fingers to count on before I finish tallying up all the things so very, very wrong with that sentence. And the Phelps family advocates this kind of behavior as godly, just, and right, kiddos. Oh yeah. You? You’re going to hell because you and your lover have the same junk in the trunk. But committing public acts of desecration at the funeral of a man who died in service to his country, in front of his grieving family? That’s your ticket right to heaven, baby. It’s also your ticket to a free ride in a police car, shiny silver bracelets non-optional. At least they’re sparkly, hm?

[snort] That, my friends, my dumplings, my little pecan-crusted nougat centers, is what I like to call a good old karmic b*tchslap.

shirly phelps-roper, fred phelps, reverend phelps, westboro baptist church, picketing, protesting

…did the world of gay news just have a miniature explosion while I was asleep or something? First we’ve got California approving legislation for gay marriage and Arnie being a douche about vetoing it, then Bush nominating a man with an anti-gay record for surgeon general (does this surprise anyone at all?), and not to mention Kalamazoo, MI stripping away same-sex partner benefits (I was supposed to speak at an animation convention there last month; I’m glad I didn’t, now). Is it just me, or did the gay community take a few hits below the belt in the past few days? Then again, it does seem to go that way rather often. A few steps forward, a few punches recoiling back. But this is the story that really catches my attention today:

Teacher Suspended For Comparing Gay Slur With The N Word - 365gay.com

 
(Nashville, Tennessee) A Nashville middle school teacher who equated calling something “gay” with the use of the N word has been suspended for three days without pay.

Stephen Henry, a sixth-grade teacher at Creswell Arts Magnet School, overheard a student describe something as “gay.” Henry approached the girl who is reportedly African American and asked her how she would feel if he were to use the N word.

The girl later complained to her parents.

This is a teacher with twenty-one years of positive history; a teacher who used an apt example to make a student understand the kind of damage her words can cause. He didn’t call her the N-word. He asked her how she would feel if she was called the N-word, so she would understand how people would feel about the use of “gay” in a negative connotation. I know the N word is racially charged and sensitive. But what it comes down to is that it’s a word that’s used to label people negatively because of a trait they’re born with: skin color. “Gay” is a word that’s used to describe people because of another trait they’re born with: homosexuality. It’s not as charged as the N word. But it could be, given time and constant use in that fashion.

I don’t think the teacher deserved a suspension at all. I think he deserves a commendation for making his point so clearly, and I hope that his intention is considered and appreciated more thoroughly when his suspension is appealed.

The girl’s mother said she was too young for that kind of discussion. If she’s old enough to be calling things “gay” in a derogatory fashion then she’s old enough to understand the connotations of her words, and young enough to change her habits before they become an ingrained and rather ugly part of her personality.

And before you get started on me about how I’ve never been called the N word so I wouldn’t understand: button it. Feel like playing the Adri’s Mystery Ethnicity game today? One of the many pieces that make up this particular pile of sweet brown sugar is good old African-American, darlin’, and where I come from one drop is all that it takes for you to be considered full-blood. So yes, I’ve been called the N word. I’ve been called the N word, redskin, tomahawk, Squanto, chink, bonzai, and a half-dozen other racial slurs based on one or another aspect of my mixed ethnicity. And that’s before the barbs begin about my sexuality, my style, my hobbies and habits.

So don’t you effin’ well tell me I wouldn’t understand why it’s so serious that he used that word as an example. And don’t tell me that the N word and a phrase like “that’s so gay” cannot be compared in severity, either, because you know what? The N word started off as a common, innocuous part of everyday language, too. Negro: the Spanish word for the color black, nothing else. As harmless as the colors red, blue, and yellow. It wasn’t until it was applied in a derogatory, dehumanizing fashion to an entire ethnic group that it began to take on the connotations that its slang/slur form, the N word, has today. It wasn’t until we made it ugly that it became filth. It isn’t the word itself. It’s the decades of intention that were poured into it.

So how long, do you think, will it take for “gay” to pick up that same connotation? How many times will we say “that’s so gay” about something we find disgusting or inadequate before the meaning of the word “gay” changes and it becomes as much of a sensitive, painful issue as the N word?

Language evolves by the means and methods in which we use it. Words mean what we wish them to mean. Words reflect our intentions.

So when you call something “gay”…tell me, what are you intending to say?

gay marriage, california, arnold schwarzenegger, george bush, surgeon general, anti-gay, james holsinger, kalamazoo, michigan, same-sex partner benefits, healthcare, the n word, gay, racism, homophobia, slurs, slang

No, this isn’t some joke. Thank gods it’s not some joke. And if the Dallas election goes well, it could actually happen.

Dallas Could Elect Its First Gay Mayor - ABC News

This conservative metropolis could become the nation’s largest city to elect an openly gay mayor if a longtime city council member wins a runoff election later this month.

Ed Oakley’s candidacy is the latest indication that Dallas’ reputation as a conservative stronghold is giving way to more diversity. The city is already home to several gay elected officials, including the sheriff.

I am going to stomp on every last one of my pessimistic, cynical tendencies to hope that Oakley wins.

I think you’d have to live in Texas to understand why this is such a monumental step. Then again, I’m sure the reputation of Georgie W.’s home state precedes itself. Despite being home to several large cities and primary centers of industry, a thinning majority of the state is still wildly intolerant of homosexuality. There’s a general assumption in many places that urban development encourages progressive thought and expansion of values to accept diversity.

In Texas, that’s rarely true.

Of course, the growing minority of those who are accepting tends to be open-minded, understanding, and quite casually comfortable with those from all walks of life. And don’t get me wrong: for every jerk who flings homophobic slurs at your back, there’s another kind soul who’ll stand by your side to offer a shoulder to lean on in those moments in which support is most needed. But it doesn’t change the fact that Texas is very much a red state.

And red states tend not to deal well with gays.

“Dallas is less and less the Dallas that people think it is,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. “And Dallas is less and less the Dallas that it used to be.”

Dallas is, admittedly, becoming more cosmopolitan than the standard of Texas cities, and I’m not surprised that this issue has found a home there first. Texas needs this - a major city, a conservative city, that at once accepts a man’s sexuality but at the same time ignores it in favor of what’s most important: his political stance. There are too many who would refuse to vote for him based on his open homosexuality alone, ignoring whether or not they’re in favor of policies that may well benefit them. If Oakley is voted into office, it will set a wonderful precedent and an example for the rest of Texas…the rest of the country.

Not that I think being gay makes him the perfect mayoral candidate; he is human, after all. He’ll have some bad, bad political ideas, some really good ones, and he’s going to botch things as often as he fixes them. Being gay doesn’t make a politician any less a politician, and it shouldn’t. But he would be a landmark, nonetheless, and his election would give me renewed hope in the turning of the tides in the conflict over sexuality in this nation.

As long as he doesn’t end up in jail over some indiscretion or another. Texas hasn’t quite caught up with California, and doesn’t allow conjugal visits for gay and lesbian inmates.

ed oakley, dallas, texas, gay elected officials, gay mayor, politics

Click to view full-size.

archive | next>>

Some of you who know me from places other than this blog have seen this already, but for the rest of you wondering what it is: sometimes I play around with webcomics. This, in specific, was an idea that I had for a webcomic about the day-to-day sardonic misadventures of a queer with no style, no fashion sense, and no idea why he should care about either.

In other words, me.

I drew this first one in Flash some time last year, just scribbling with a graphics tablet, but never felt much of a reason to continue it. Well…now I have a reason. I think No Style might find a comfortable home here, though I’ll be changing the style (no pun intended) of the artwork for the next one as it’s just faster and cleaner for me to draw by hand and color in Photoshop as opposed to the deliberately-messy Flash-drawing style.

So…we’ll see how this works out, and if I can keep up with one comic a week on top of everything else I do. Look at it as a touch of humor to start off your week each Monday before the rest of the week goes back to talking about news, issues, and Serious Business.

See you tomorrow.

no style, gay comics, webcomics, humor, gay comic strip

There are days when I find trawling through the news to be wholly depressing. Despite reading the heartening news that New Hampshire’s governor has officially signed into effect legislation establishing same-sex unions, I couldn’t help but be horrified at what I stumbled upon after that:

Four Held In Bizarre HIV Injection Case - 365Gay.com

 
(Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Four men are accused of drugging, raping and then injecting their male victims with their own HIV-infected blood Dutch police have announced.

Remember the other day, when I said that I couldn’t really see gays forming roving gangs to assault people? Okay, I’m eating my words right now. And they taste damned bitter. Granted, the situation isn’t the same as the hypothetical proposed in Monday’s article.

It’s much, much worse.

It’s worse than the stories of needles dipped in HIV-infected blood left in movie theatre seats. It’s even worse than the careless negligence of those who are HIV+ and choose to have unprotected sex with willing partners without informing them (although that ranges pretty closely). It’s a disgusting and immoral violation of another human being, through rape in order to spread a terminal illness.

I thought we, as human beings, were better than that. I thought that we had evolved as a species beyond such behavior save for in isolated individuals. I am aware that many groups (known as “bug chasers“) exist consisting of people who want to infect others and who want to be infected, as an underground sexual + acceptance subculture that borders on fetishism. I can’t say I approve of their choices or their desires, but where there’s consent involved I can’t do more than shake my head and recommend a psychiatric evaluation. Every once in a while they cross the line into malicious misinformation and nonconsent, but I’ve never seen it happen as an organized group committing multiple acts of assault and rape with effects more permanent and deadly than the physical and psychological trauma resulting from rape.

“The motive to do this was the ‘kick,’ and the feeling that unsafe sex is ‘pure.’”

I think I’m going to be sick.

What thrill is worth this?

Not only the sacrifice of your life, but the lives of others - and of your own basic human decency?

I weep for the men whose lives have been forever altered by these acts.

And I weep for the knowledge that we, as human beings, could behave so atrociously towards one another.

Update, 9:37 a.m. CST: Samantha has provided several links containing more information on the issue (see comments), but most notable is the story of the investigation into a subsection of the Netherlands HIV Foundation and whether or not they’ve been encouraging unsafe sex by organizing Poz & Proud sex parties.

This just gets worse with each new possibility.

hiv, aids, bug chasers, infection, human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, new hampshire, civil unions, same-sex unions, netherlands hiv foundation, hvn